Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.
After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade nearly two years ago, doctors started seeing more young adults seeking vasectomies or getting their tubes tied, emerging research has found.
His doctor required written consent, which Smith provided, and the surgery was performed. Later, after reaching Washington's statutory age of majority, then 21, the doctor was sued by Smith, who now claimed that he had been a minor and thus unable to grant surgical or medical consent. The Court rejected Smith's argument: "Thus, age ...
A medical doctor advocates for assisted suicide and the right to die. Robert Latimer: Canada Saskatchewan: 1993 A man euthanizes his child who has lived for years in pain. Karen Ann Quinlan case: United States New Jersey 1976 A 21-year-old girl is in a persistent vegetative state. Her parents wish to remove her from artificial respiration ...
After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that protected abortion rights, medical professionals say they have seen a drastic increase in vasectomies.
Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority [1996] 4 All ER 771 is an important English tort law case, on the standard of care required by medical specialists. It follows the Bolam test for professional negligence, and addresses the interaction with the concept of causation.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals such as doctors. This rule is known as the Bolam test, and states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a ...
An informed consent clause, although allowing medical professionals not to perform procedures against their conscience, does not allow professionals to give fraudulent information to deter a patient from obtaining such a procedure (such as lying about the risks involved in an abortion to deter one from obtaining one) in order to impose one's belief using deception.